United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Cincinnati
Michael R. Barrett District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MICHAEL R. MERZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a habeas corpus case brought pro se by Petitioner Raj Houston
to obtain relief from his conviction in the Hamilton County
Common Pleas Court for kidnapping. Robbery, aggravated
robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, and having weapons while
under a disability (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 1, ¶ 5.)
Houston pleads two grounds for relief.
Ground One: Ineffective Assistance of
Supporting Facts: Appellate and trial
counsel were both ineffective due to failing to raise several
major issues in my case. Appellate counsel failed to object
to defendant/appellant being viewed by the jury in jailhouse
clothes while handcuffed and shackled denying
defendant/appellants right to due process and fair trial.
Also Appellate counsel failed to raise trial counsels
ineffectiveness for failing to object to improper jury
instructions and for failing to object to Prosecutorial
Misconduct for a Brady Violation, rendering Appellants trial
fundamentally unfair in violation of the constitutions of
Ohio and United States. Lastly Appellate counsel failed to
raise trial counsels ineffectiveness for failing to properly
prepare for trial by failing to obtain a full discovery,
denying appellant the right to notice and decide if he is
going to proceed to trial or consider the plea offered by the
Ground Two: The trial court erred in imposing on Mr. Houston
consecutive maximum sentences.
Supporting Facts: Double jeopardy and allied offenses
forbades [sic] the law from sentencing Mr. Houston to the
maximum on all charges.
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 5-6).
case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 10). Mr. Houston has filed a Response in
Opposition (ECF No. 11).
Warden argues the Petition is barred by the habeas corpus
statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). He also
argues consideration of the merits of Houston's claims is
barred by his procedural default in presenting them to the
state courts. Houston disagrees with both defenses.
habeas corpus statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. §
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of -
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time ...